I didn't find that movie especially noteworthy, though I'm in the minority there (so many people online keep buzzing about the soundtrack/score, which I thought was almost laughably obvious in places).

Exactly. If the Academy wants to honor films they, and not the public, deem worthy, I say more power to them - these are *their* awards after all. But they shouldn't then complain that fewer and fewer people are watching the actual awards show every year.

Click to expand...

I think the only people worried about the ratings are the network and the producers of the awards show; I'm pretty sure the average Academy member who actually votes doesn't give a crap about the ratings.

Personally, I'm fine with them nominating lesser known films. Do you really want to see the Oscars turn into the People's Choice Awards and have Transformers: Dark of the Moon be nominated for Best Picture?

TRANSFORMERS 3, hell no. HARRY POTTER 8 or CAPTAIN AMERICA 1, hell yes. Once in a while, you get a great popular movie like THE DEPARTED. It's the best of both worlds. Now I'm off to post my personal favorites on a separate thread.

I didn't find that movie especially noteworthy, though I'm in the minority there (so many people online keep buzzing about the soundtrack/score, which I thought was almost laughably obvious in places).

Click to expand...

Drive seems to be generating buzz mostly in niche areas. I'm not hearing a heck of a lot about it outside newsgroups. And it came and went so fast in the theatres here I just assumed it was a bomb. That said, I'm the guy who works in the media yet somehow managed to avoid hearing anything about a movie called "Napoleon Dynamite" until I happened upon an action figure in a comic shop a couple years back.

I think that's the disconnect with viewers of the show though. I mean you make movies to perhaps reach an audience, but when you only nominate films that barely anyone has seen, why should they waste their time with the actual show?

Click to expand...

The Academy isn't catering to the TV show. If they decided to no longer broadcast the Oscars, they'd still hand them out. It's only within the last 20 years that anyone gave a damn about the Oscar ratings. Popularity does not equal quality, and one of the great things about the Oscars is it gives press to films the mainstream might have ignored. Again I go to Slumdog Millionaire, or No Country for Old Men, etc. If you want awards shows skewed towards only nominating the big splashy films, MTV's Movie awards and the Spike Scream Awards have that market cornered.

I made mention of being disappointed that Harry Potter 8 didn't get nominated - but that was because I want to see the entire series recognized in some way. But if I were given my choice of nominations for Best Picture, I'd actually more likely have given the spot to Another Earth.

TRANSFORMERS 3, hell no. HARRY POTTER 8 or CAPTAIN AMERICA 1, hell yes. Once in a while, you get a great popular movie like THE DEPARTED. It's the best of both worlds. Now I'm off to post my personal favorites on a separate thread.

Click to expand...

Captain America for BEST PICTURE? Seriously? It was a good movie, but it's not a GREAT movie.

If I had to choose a popular movie that didn't get nominated that should, it would be Bridesmaids. (which got a couple, but should've been nominated for best Pic.)

Even bigger surprise is TinTin got snubbed despite winning some other awards. Another nail in the coffin for photo-real CG in movies?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a shame Tintin didn't get nominated. But it's due to a rule where the Academy deemed motion-captured rules to not be real animation. It's all because Pixar complained that motion-captured movies were being nominated when Cars wasn't and should have won by critical acclaim. I can see where they were coming from, perhaps feeling like the motion-captured movies were encroaching on their territory, but that should only mean they should work harder to make great movies. They shouldn't be at a point where they win by default. Tintin was a real piece of art, but it gets excluded due to an exclusionary rule. In my mind, it's all animation; they're just different tools, different means to an end result, and I think it's quite unfair to the people who've worked very hard making movies like Tintin. Because of that rule, you get the other extreme end where some other animated movies that aren't particularly noteworthy make the list, like Puss'n'Boots and Kung-Fu Panda 2, with movies that deserve attention like Tintin getting shut out. Strikes me as somewhat elitist. I think the Academy should find a middle-ground, so that both types of animation are recognized. I don't see motion-captured movies going away anytime soon. I only see it getting more popular as time goes on and as things get more complicated. I think motion-capture as a valid form of animation is quite understated when done well.

But it's due to a rule where the Academy deemed motion-captured rules to not be real animation.

Click to expand...

No, it was eligible to be nominated (they announce a list of all the films under consideration). However, it was not, because the animators in the Academy generally don't consider motion capture to be animation (because of the actors being involved), and so didn't vote for it.

Well, it comes down to the same thing, doesn't it? It still was excluded because they didn't consider motion-capture to be animation, eligible or not. The issue is a confusing one. Anyhow, It's likely better than many animated movies that did get nominated, and I hope the Academy realizes that the rule is too restrictive. Actors or not, I don't think motion-captured movies should be excluded, if they're genuine efforts. They're only going to become more common over time.

^ But as CaptainCanada says, it's not a rule - it's just a point-of-view or prejudice which some of the voting members hold. It's not a question of lifting a rule or exclusion, just of people opening their minds.